Tree wrote:Tell me, what's your solution to the problem? Let's hear it Mr. Great Statesman and hopefully it will be something better than cliches and platitudes about tolerance and "just getting along" singing Kumbaya.

Sparhafoc wrote:So, Tree contends that Muslims will replace us and become the dominant population in 'some European countries'.

He then cites a series of immigration models, even the highest of which results in the Muslim population of Europe being 14%. For those similarly challenged as Tree, pro tip 14% is not 'dominant', it's still firmly a minority.

Simpletonfoc, the Pew Research Center guys who modeled Muslim population growth in Europe only did it up to 2050.

More thinking, less emoting. Last time I checked, time doesn't suddenly stop in 2050, nor do we enter a time when things no longer change.

14% is more than enough to exacerbate the current wave of Islamic terrorism Europe is experiencing. I keep having to remind you, there is a limited number of people that your intelligence agencies can monitor 24/7. That's only the average because a country like Sweden under that model would have 30% Muslims which is more than enough to have a powerful voting bloc or stage a coup. Any such scenario is possible given enough time and history has made it very clear, things don't stay the same if you don't struggle to preserve them.

Now any good statesman should be concerned about this sort of thing. A civilization is only as good as the people in it and it's why countries like Iraq or Syria utterly fail to modernize even when the dictator is either dead (Saddam) or no longer in full control of the territory (Assad).

The US Founding Fathers were great statesmen, unlike most of today's modern career politicians. They understood that you can't preserve a free society if the people themselves don't value their rights. They even wrote the 2nd amendment as a last resort against tyranny because they didn't think 10 or 20 years ahead, but indefinitely, which is how you do things if you want your civilization to stand the test of time. Now what are Islam's values? They teach people liberty doesn't matter, government by consent of the people doesn't matter, following Sharia law matters and you must submit to a Sharia enforcing tyrant. They teach people non-Muslims are scum to be subjugated or killed. They teach people women are inferior to men and should basically be their near slaves. These are not values conducive to a free society.

To quote George Washington in his 1790 State of the Union Address:

To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways: By convincing those, who are entrusted with the public administration, that every valuable end of Government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority

You're on vessel, your hull is 5% full of water already, there's a crack in the hull where the water is coming from, and your crew is telling you that it might be 14% full of water by 20:50 PM if you take no action and let things continue as they are.

Now, I don't need to be some expert nor do I need an expert to spoon feed me information to figure out that after 20:50 it can only get much worse and you're going to take on even more water if no action is taken to remedy the problem. And I also don't need to be an expert to figure out that you don't need a hull full of water to destabilize the ship's ability to stay afloat. You just need enough water to destabilize its buoyancy or make it capsize. Depending on how well the ship is designed, that can happen sooner or later.

Completely straight faced after citing a source that completely destroys his claim, he then declares any number of Muslims to be a danger, before finally pretending that he is thinking for himself.

Too inept to realize the model is made up to 2050. I don't limit myself to 2050.

Sadly for our little vacuous troll here, he doesn't realize that this is my field and that I am one of those experts and consequently knew he was talking out of his rectum the instant he started this right-wing supremacist wet-wankery.

I'm going to call bullshit on it seeing as you don't understand a simple concept that this was ONLY A MODEL UP TO 2050, and that things can get much worse after 2050.

I don't care if you're a certified surgeon. If you come to the operating room with tools dripping of blood from the last patient, you're not using those tools on me. Period.

It's also possible the surgeon does know what he's doing and he's deliberately trying to kill me. Being an expert doesn't prove your intentions are good as you could be deliberately trying to mislead people to further your political agenda. Which you will probably deny having, just like you denied having a worldview despite displaying a firmly left-wing worldview.

Your field by the way, in fact pretty much anything related to social sciences, is nowhere near as rigorous as the natural or hard sciences. In making these models there are lots of political and social factors that aren't exactly in your control or full understanding. And you don't have a model for 2050+ anyway, so how is this akin to denying evolution?

There is no path beyond conquest and annihilation of populaces that would result in Muslims being the dominant group in any nation in Europe - to claim otherwise is to publicize one's ignorance of population biology.

Just because nobody has modeled it beyond 2050 doesn't mean it can't happen and you keep forgetting you're dealing with factors beyond your control, like politics and unexpected social movements. Every "expert" predicted Trump would lose in a landslide, they were wrong, they underestimated the population's discontent with mainstream career politicians. 2 years ago you would have laughed at the idea that Trump would even be viable candidate. Pretending that is is like doing natural or hard sciences is foolish so equally foolish it is to call my position akin to "creationism".

Sure there is a path. There is already a possible model putting Sweden at 30% (from almost nothing last century) and I see no reason to believe that trend would stop in 2050. If a population can grow from almost nothing to 30%, with no conquest or annihilation, it can grow beyond that, particularly when nothing changes to stop this trend.

Now this could be halted even sooner than 2050, but that would require a paradigm shift in Sweden's far left social policies. Do you have any reason to believe that will happen? And even if it will happen, what makes you think it will without us "Islamophobes" exposing Islam's violent teachings?

Sparhafoc wrote:This is abject fucking crackpottery of the lowest order imaginable.

No it's not, the possibility is very real.

100 years ago, you would have said it's crackpottery that today Muslims would be 5% of Europe or that Germany would take half a million Muslim refugees (mostly military aged men) in a single year or that France would be 10% Muslim. Or that someone would make a prediction for 2050 putting Muslims at 14% with high immigration and 11% with medium.

5 years ago you would have said it's crackpottery that enough Muslims in Syria and Iraq would take over half of these countries and try to revive the caliphate and sponsor or instigate a wave of very deadly terrorist attacks in multiple countries.

17 years ago you would have it's crackpottery that 19 Muslims could capture 4 planes, crash 1 plane and fly the other 3 into buildings killing 3000 people, maiming countless others and doing hundreds of billions in property damage.

Crackpot alert. Demands I solve Islamic terrorism on a message board on the internet, when the notion is rejected as being fucking idiotic, he then pretends it's me who's not discussing honestly!

I asked you what your solution is. What policies would you implement if you were in positions of authority in Europe or the US. My question was clear enough for a 10 year old to understand.

I didn't ask you to "solve Islamic terrorism and theocracy on a message board". Simpleton.

You realize that you look a tit when you play with a name like a high school bully?

It's just another iteration of your inability to engage in reasoned discourse. You use distraction and abuse because your arguments do not possess sufficient merit by themselves.

Tree wrote:.... the Pew Research Center guys who modeled Muslim population growth in Europe only did it up to 2050.

Nice mantra, how about garnering a fucking clue?

Firstly, your claim is that Muslims will become the dominant population in a European country in the near future.

So wheres your source for that claim, because that Pew Research doesn't support your contention because, as was pretty fucking clear to anyone, it had 3 different models, and the most extreme version - the one which entails continuing conflicts in the Middle East causing millions of people to flee their homes and go to Europe for succor - arrived at 14% population of Europe being Muslims by the year 2050.

So even the most extreme model, the one least likely to be anything reflective of the actual affairs, still contradicts your asinine assertion.

Are you going to back up that assertion, or would you like to withdraw it now while you only look like a numpty for having asserted it rather than repeatedly doubling down because you can't admit your error?

I don't mind either way.

Regardless, even in this wildest possible outcome, we still never arrive at Muslims becoming the dominant population in Europe, not least because it would take half the fucking world's population of Muslims to up home and move to Europe you total fucking numpty.

Go on, talk about how 'they' breed a lot.

Tree wrote:More thinking, less emoting. Last time I checked, time doesn't suddenly stop in 2050, nor do we enter a time when things no longer change.

Utterly clueless. It's also like you've forgotten your claim:

Some European countries could (have dominant Muslim populations), and not that far into the future either.

How far into this not very far future are you talking about?

Does it just so happen to be in 2051 the day after the models you're appealing to end?

Either which way, this is all clearly motivated reasoning. You have no actual evidence for your contention, and you're appealing to a hypothetical model based explicitly on a continued crisis occurring for multiple generations. What is the actual likelihood of this? Well, not very high at all, not least because the numbers are already dropping. In reality, once crises are over, vast numbers will return home.

Rather, the more balanced estimates based on what the most likely outcomes suggest puts the percentage of Europe's population as Muslim in 2050 at around 10-11%.

Hardly the stuff of swivel-eyed xenophobic wet-dreams where the Muslim horde swamps the good white folks, is it?

So how do you account for the vast disparity between your claim and the source you use to nominally support your claim?

Tree wrote:14% is more than enough to exacerbate the current wave of Islamic terrorism Europe is experiencing. I keep having to remind you, there is a limited number of people that your intelligence agencies can monitor 24/7. That's only the average because a country like Sweden under that model would have 30% Muslims which is more than enough to have a powerful voting bloc or stage a coup. Any such scenario is possible given enough time and history has made it very clear, things don't stay the same if you don't struggle to preserve them.

Internet pranksters tried to start a hoax campaign to change the cross on the Swedish flag to a Turkish-style crescent and star. Although a few people were tricked, the lacklustre response to the campaign co-ordinated on 4chan could be a sign that the extreme message board's influence on internet culture is starting to wane.

How very 4chan of you, and it's amusing how we've come full circle here!

Regardless, this is the degree of legitimacy your proclamations engender. Nonsensical drivel made up by undereducated morons who get off on stirring up shit. That seems a remarkably accurate summary of your tenure here, by totally unsurprising chance.

Tree wrote:Now any good statesman should be concerned about this sort of thing.

Or, you know, real things. Real things are good too.

Tree wrote:A civilization is only as good as the people in it and it's why countries like Iraq or Syria utterly fail to modernize even when the dictator is either dead (Saddam) or no longer in full control of the territory (Assad).

Ahh yes, Victorian mode on... it's the calibre of these people that is the real issue here, that brown lot can't get their acts in gear!

But wait, weren't they just poised to overthrow us?

Can't you get your fiction to at least be internally consistent? Are they useless schmucks who couldn't hope to organize a piss up in a brewery, or are they fiendish devils lurking behind smiles and waiting to stab us while we sleep?

Tree wrote:The US Founding Fathers were great statesmen, unlike most of today's modern career politicians.

Oh here we go. We haven't had any American myths for at least 10 posts, so I suppose we're due some.

Tree wrote: They understood that you can't preserve a free society if the people themselves don't value their rights. They even wrote the 2nd amendment as a last resort against tyranny because they didn't think 10 or 20 years ahead, but indefinitely, which is how you do things if you want your civilization to stand the test of time. Now what are Islam's values? They teach people liberty doesn't matter, government by consent of the people doesn't matter, following Sharia law matters and you must submit to a Sharia enforcing tyrant. They teach people non-Muslims are scum to be subjugated or killed. They teach people women are inferior to men and should basically be their near slaves. These are not values conducive to a free society.

They also saw first-hand the consequences of religious discrimination and did their utmost to ensure the USA never emulated the Religious Wars in Europe, but let's ignore context and go for cherries.

Tree wrote: To quote George Washington in his 1790 State of the Union Address:

To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways: By convincing those, who are entrusted with the public administration, that every valuable end of Government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority

They clearly failed in the latter case in regards to you and yours.

Tree wrote: You're on vessel, your hull is 5% full of water already, there's a crack in the hull where the water is coming from, and your crew is telling you that it might be 14% full of water by 20:50 PM if you take no action and let things continue as they are.

Ahh we're back to ship scenarios again! Lucky us!

Tree wrote: Now, I don't need to be some expert nor do I need an expert to spoon feed me information to figure out that after 20:50 it can only get much worse and you're going to take on even more water if no action is taken to remedy the problem. And I also don't need to be an expert to figure out that you don't need a hull full of water to destabilize the ship's ability to stay afloat. You just need enough water to destabilize its buoyancy or make it capsize. Depending on how well the ship is designed, that can happen sooner or later.

Wonderful. Sadly, when it comes to population biology you do need to be an expert to have your proclamations taken seriously. This folksy foray into ship metaphors notwithstanding.

Tree wrote:

Completely straight faced after citing a source that completely destroys his claim, he then declares any number of Muslims to be a danger, before finally pretending that he is thinking for himself.

Too inept to realize the model is made up to 2050. I don't limit myself to 2050.

Because your claim is nonsensical and you can't support it.

Tree wrote:

Sadly for our little vacuous troll here, he doesn't realize that this is my field and that I am one of those experts and consequently knew he was talking out of his rectum the instant he started this right-wing supremacist wet-wankery.

I'm going to call bullshit on it seeing as you don't understand a simple concept that this was ONLY A MODEL UP TO 2050, and that things can get much worse after 2050.

Call bullshit all you like, but you're still completely fucking clueless, not least because you've shoved in a 'much worse' there not realizing that you're emoting again and the facts don't measure anything about better or worse.

Again, the model up to 2050 shows that even in 30 years, we get nowhere near your claim that a European nation would have Muslims as their dominant population. You seem to be missing that data in the set you're appealing to.

Even if you take your naive method of appraising the data, how long would it take for your fantasy to come true? Have you calculated? Please show your working for the lulz!

Tree wrote: I don't care if you're a certified surgeon. If you come to the operating room with tools dripping of blood from the last patient, you're not using those tools on me. Period.

Because that's what I've done, right Tree?

This is like the assassin house-mate which represents Muslims - you really should try writing fiction, you're good at that, and sadly, only that.

Tree wrote: It's also possible the surgeon does know what he's doing and he's deliberately trying to kill me.

It's funny when even your own extended bizarre analogies still have that paranoiac element where the bad guys are out to get you.

Tree wrote: Being an expert doesn't prove your intentions are good as you could be deliberately trying to mislead people to further your political agenda. Which you will probably deny having, just like you denied having a worldview despite displaying a firmly left-wing worldview.

The Creationist Argument repeated for the 7th or 8th time.

In reality, it's you whose agenda is dictating reality for them.

As for a world-view, you were shown wrong before, but do keep making a total tit out of yourself. Also, everyone in the world is 'left-wing' compared to swivel-eyed xenophobes.

Again: my position, I tell you - not the other way round, sling your silly hook.

Tree wrote:Your field by the way, in fact pretty much anything related to social sciences, is nowhere near as rigorous as the natural or hard sciences. In making these models there are lots of political and social factors that aren't exactly in your control or full understanding. And you don't have a model for 2050+ anyway, so how is this akin to denying evolution?

What a complete fucking clown you are!

Oh btw, you smell of elderberries and your mother was a necktie!

Incidentally, I'm in the biological sciences, just so you don't trot off into another wild fantasy scenario you contrive ad hoc to sling poo.

And what's the bit about akin to denying evolution? Your non-sequiturs are genuinely perplexing!

I swear you're on mind-altering medication.

Regardless, I know exactly what those models are, how they operate, and what their limitations are. I also know the other societal forces at play which will naturally curtail that increase in population, not least because affluence and number of children are negatively correlated, or that the Muslim world is seeing a rapid decline in fertility too.

But mere facts that are completely in contradiction to your fantasy scenarios, so feel free to ignore them!

Tree wrote:

There is no path beyond conquest and annihilation of populaces that would result in Muslims being the dominant group in any nation in Europe - to claim otherwise is to publicize one's ignorance of population biology.

Just because nobody has modeled it beyond 2050 doesn't mean it can't happen...

Yes, actually, yes it does mean it can't happen because it's nonsensical bollocks only a clueless fop would believe.

Tree wrote:... and you keep forgetting you're dealing with factors beyond your control, like politics and unexpected social movements.

Neither of which are relevant to magicking more Muslims up to save your asinine assertion from being shown delusional bullshit.

Tree wrote:Every "expert" predicted Trump would lose in a landslide,...

Stupid assertion: plenty of 'experts' predicted Trump would win.

Also, what's the connection between an 'expert' in predicting voting and an expert in population Biology, because I am not seeing how your analogy makes any fucking sense at all, but is a typical format of argument you use where your analogy shows all the terrible things that you can't show to be true in the thing you're analogizing.

Tree wrote:they were wrong,...

Except the ones that were right.

Tree wrote: they underestimated the population's discontent with mainstream career politicians.

Or underestimated how fucking thick the voting base actually is, how they will vote against their own best interests, how they will buy into bullshit if it fits their political biases, how much more effective Russia is at influencing our populations than we are at influencing its, how the USA is plagued with the absurd metamagical belief of Prosperity Theology where having money is a sign of God's favour, and all the millions of other factors that comprise this topic other than the simplistic rendition you're offering up for consumption yet again.

Tree wrote:2 years ago you would have laughed at the idea that Trump would even be viable candidate.

Some of us are still laughing!

Tree wrote:Pretending that is is like doing natural or hard sciences is foolish so equally foolish it is to call my position akin to "creationism".

Ask me why I said it - stop making up stupid motivations that indicate only the paucity of your comprehension.

Tree wrote:Sure there is a path. There is already a possible model putting Sweden at 30% (from almost nothing last century) and I see no reason to believe that trend would stop in 2050. If a population can grow from almost nothing to 30%, with no conquest or annihilation, it can grow beyond that, particularly when nothing changes to stop this trend.

Which is why you should probably stop flapping your trap and start asking questions which would consequently educate you as to why you're publicly showing your utter ignorance?

For one thing, you are going to need to look at what they mean by calling someone 'Muslim' because ignorance of that alone would indicate a complete disregard for reality.

For another, you are going to need to explain the path where half a million people turn into 30 million people. How do you envision this happening - go on, spell it out.

Tree wrote:Now this could be halted even sooner than 2050, but that would require a paradigm shift in Sweden's far left social policies. Do you have any reason to believe that will happen? And even if it will happen, what makes you think it will without us "Islamophobes" exposing Islam's violent teachings?

You're using that word again.

It's funny that only you have used that word here, but you put it in scare quotes! You're so transparent, Tree.

Regardless, do I have any reason that a consequence to your delusional notion would happen? Of course not, because the circumstances on which it resides are a fantasy.

Tree wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:This is abject fucking crackpottery of the lowest order imaginable.

No it's not, the possibility is very real.

No, it's abject fucking crackpottery of the lowest imaginable order, and the fact that you think otherwise shows all that really needs to be shown here as to why you make such atrocious arguments. It's because you do not possess the ability to accurately evaluate information.

Tree wrote:100 years ago, you would have said it's crackpottery that today Muslims would be 5% of Europe or that Germany would take half a million Muslim refugees (mostly military aged men) in a single year or that France would be 10% Muslim. Or that someone would make a prediction for 2050 putting Muslims at 14% with high immigration and 11% with medium.

No, I wouldn't. Not least because the Muslim population of Europe was already around 5% give or take.

As for half a million X, Y, Z... considering the astronmical proportions of population increase in the intervening 100 years, the notion of half a million would be absolutely bemusing. Of course, when there are 82 million people in a country, it puts that into perspective.

Tree wrote:5 years ago you would have said it's crackpottery that enough Muslims in Syria and Iraq would take over half of these countries and try to revive the caliphate and sponsor or instigate a wave of very deadly terrorist attacks in multiple countries.

Irrelevant. None of these distractions justify your erroneously asserted claptrap, and you are once again mimicking Creationist argumentation.

Tree wrote:17 years ago you would have it's crackpottery that 19 Muslims could capture 4 planes, crash 1 plane and fly the other 3 into buildings killing 3000 people, maiming countless others and doing hundreds of billions in property damage.

Yeah, only you pretend to have a crystal ball.

Any which way, none of these scenarios are analogous, Tree, because none of them involve population Biology which is where your claim goes south.

Do you intend ever to argue for it, or do you think that these distractions will someone pave the way towards rectitude?

Tree wrote:

Crackpot alert. Demands I solve Islamic terrorism on a message board on the internet, when the notion is rejected as being fucking idiotic, he then pretends it's me who's not discussing honestly!

I asked you what your solution is. What policies would you implement if you were in positions of authority in Europe or the US. My question was clear enough for a 10 year old to understand.

And I clearly understood it - I just couldn't believe you were that much of a mouth-breather to write such a stupid thing publicly - I was wrong, but I have only myself to blame for that given your track record.

Tree wrote:I didn't ask you to "solve Islamic terrorism and theocracy on a message board". Simpleton.

Says he didn't do something he literally just admitted to doing, then calls someone else a simpleton!

he_who_is_nobody wrote:For whatever reason you think Khan is a moron for saying that, yet that is the exact same thing that happens in the US. Are the politicians in the US that say that also idiots?

You know what? Maybe they are. Maybe ways to prevent mass shootings should be explored as long as the 2nd amendment is upheld and we don't need to choose between gun control and doing nothing.

So, you do not think people being vigilant is something between gun control and doing nothing?

Tree wrote:For starters, mass shooters tend to have troubled lives especially troubled childhoods. We could for starters do far more to ensure children grow up with both their natural parents, single parenthood is not good for children. But this would require a cultural shift, not so much political action.

Citation needed.

Tree wrote:

It is not a tu quoque because I am not excusing the Koran or the people that follow. I am merely trying to understand why you think they are a special case.

Fair enough, I explained why. Because it generates violence on an unprecedented level when compared to other religions.

Unprecedented for today maybe, and I am not even sure how true that is. However, back to my point, their violence is not unique to them, but shared by the other two Abrahamic religions as well.

Tree wrote:

Yeah. No one is saying that. I oppose Islam, just as much as I oppose any falsity. Again, you seem to think it is special and I am trying to understand why.

I do think it's special and I'm not interested in falsity alone, I also care how dangerous something is.

I wonder how worked up you are against climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers than.

Tree wrote:

Are you going to explain to us the meaning of is next?

This was a fairly simple point to understand, I'm not sure why I need to explain it further.

What I think someone deserves and what I think should in fact be done to them by other human beings are two different things. Maybe I don't trust humans to inflict the punishments that someone justly deserves.

There are people who believe murderers are worthy of death, but oppose capital punishment for practical reasons and would certainly never accept vigilante justice. But maybe they'd be happy to hear some murderer got cancer and died.

That is some nice spin. Slick Willy would be proud.

Tree wrote:

Nope. Not saying that, I am saying that all the Abrahamic faiths are terrible and anathema to modernity. Whether the followers of that faith actually follow them to the letter has far more to do with where they live. Modern society nooddered Christianity, why can it not do the same for Islam?

It's not just that Christians don't follow everything to the letter, but letter of the religion itself has mitigating factors.

Citation needed.

Tree wrote:

Context is key to my statement. You said, "Before you start quoting the Torah, keep in mind the context isn't universal." To state that you must have not known that the New Testament also teaches that homosexuals are worthy of death.

Again without clarification on who exactly must carry out the execution, this doesn't say much.

Still trying to tell us what is actually means.

Tree wrote:There are plenty of people that I personally would say are "worthy of death" but I wouldn't actually condone their killing by other human beings.

Good to know I am dealing with a psychopath. Now imagine you had an invisible friend that you thought had authority over everything and by following its rules will insure you are treated special in the next life. How might that change your actions?

Tree wrote:

Than again, modernity pacified one death cult's followers, why can it not do it to another?

They were never equal death cults, they have different theologies, even the concept of martyrdom is different. In Christianity you're a martyr if you die (murdered) for what you believe in. In Islam martyrdom is dying in jihad. There's no reason to believe they would respond equally to "modernity". They already do not respond equally. All this wealth, all this technology, advancements in many aspects of life hasn't made the Islamic world less brutal.

Citation needed for your martyrdom claims. Beyond that, are you just going to ignore foreign meddling in the Middle East? In addition, if you never thought they were equal death cults, I think you need to consult a history book.

Tree wrote:

What does that even mean to try and conquer the world? The first half of the Old Testament is Israel trying to concor everything around them. Yahweh tells me explicitly to go forth and take everything.

"Everything around them" is very little if you look at old ancient Israel maps.

They never had an interest outside of the promised land.

I see that more as a failing of their armies. I seem to remember a quote from the Bible about Yahweh seeding the the planet to the Israelites, but I cannot find it right now, thus I concede this to you.

Tree wrote:There have been entire empires governed as caliphates i.e. under Sharia law, not even one country governed by Dominion Theology. From all the major branches of Islam, both Sunni schools and Shi'ite schools, not one rejects the notion of governance by Sharia law, while all the major branches of Christianity reject Torah law. Using the theology of a cult to paint both religions as equal is laughable.

Tis what you are doing.

Tree wrote:What is it with you people that you have such a poor grasp of nuance? I mean let's say you had two extended families. One had many kids in this generation growing up to be doctors, engineers etc but one criminal dropout - the one black sheep of the family. The other family produced almost nothing but dropouts, criminals and unemployed.

Now people with common sense would say the first family probably had better parenting. People like you would say the families are essentially no different because "well, they both have a criminal in the family don't they?"

It's a really sloppy way of thinking that is only possible if you completely reject everything you know about statistics and probability. You don't need to be some expert, but damn, don't be dunce either. Try to think.

I specifically asked for Christian and Jewish groups trying to implement the Torah's laws and doing terrorism for it.

Is that not what I gave you? If a Christian terrorist group is trying to implement Biblical law, do not most of those laws come from the Old Testament?

Tree wrote:There are Christian terrorists, but they tend to be single issue terrorists like anti-abortion...

That is not what the citation I gave showed.

Tree wrote:... and they're nowhere near as common or as deadly as the vast network of global Islamic terrorists which have operatives now in half the globe.

Citation needed.

Tree wrote:No shortage of Islamic groups trying to implement Sharia.

Quite a double standard there.

Why is it a double standard to point out violent Christian countries are a statistical aberration and even then they are not governed by the Torah?

I am still just trying to understand where the threshold is. So, pointing out a few violent Christian led countries is not good enough. I would think that one would be upset that any violence is being done, especially in the name of something fake.

Tree wrote:

Skeptic's Annotated Bible wrote:Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23

Actually the only thing he's claiming is:

"3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

Descriptive. Not prescriptive.

I can tell you for example that going on tourism to North Korea is dangerous without supporting what they do to some tourists.

Is again.

Tree wrote:

No. I can argue that it tells people to kill other people for not believing.

Again, context is key to this statement. I said there was one religion in the US that has told people where they can and cannot put their genitals. You said, "... there's actually little genital regulation beyond violations of the non-aggression principle." Now you basically agree with my original statement, since people will bring their prejudices in and where did those prejudices come from? No talk of following the Torah or over throwing the system by the way.

I never said Christianity doesn't have issues, it's just not usually issues I'm super concerned about.

Says the guy that is constantly screeching about the SJWs sex negative views.

Tree wrote:

Are you really asking how regulating abstinence only education is not a form of regulating how we use our genitals?

What then is the criminal penalty or fine if I simply ignore everything that these lessons tell me and go ahead and have premarital sex anyway?

Answer: none.

So, you are fine with religions regulating aspects of our lives as long as we do not get punished. Okay, beyond this, you are the one that brought this subject up, not I. Just glad to see you are fine with some religious regulations in your life.

Tree wrote:

Beyond that, you brought up abstinence education, and I merely am pointing out how the Christians are the ones backing that regulation.

It's a regulation of school curriculum, not genitals.

Yes. You already admitted to being fine that religion can regulate some things. I get it.

Tree wrote:

I could have made myself clearer in my post. What I meant by "it happening at all" is the problem is that the reasoning behind it comes from religion. I live in a secular society, religion should not factor into that.

We don't live in a perfect world. Rather than spend time on crumbs, I'd rather deal with real threats to the republic.

Yeah, those real threats are in the republic. Not outside of it. However, you already admitted to being okay with some regulation from religion.

Tree wrote:

Citation needed.

You're free to interact with SJWs and come to your own conclusions. Not everything is going to be given to you on a platter with some survey.

Claims made without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.

Tree wrote:

Again, says you. However, I will agree that Islam is fare game to criticism, just like any other religion.

Tell that to the elites. Apart from Trump, almost everyone else is stubborn to face the reality. And Trump can't do much alone.

Your link talks about a survey done by Policy Exchange, but does not link to the actual survey. The only thing it does link to is this. A quick search for that actual study turned up nothing on my end.

Tree wrote:

Why do those secular dictators fall?

Some are overthrown by US decisions, but that's not all of it. The people in those countries can also overthrow them or they can die of natural causes and their successors can be less secular.

It should be noted that even these secular dictators aren't fully secular all the time. General Sisi removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt, but he didn't abolish blasphemy laws for example, those are still on the books. Assad's Syria still mentions Sharia in the constitution. It's possible even these dictators need to play ball to some degree. The more they anger practicing Muslims the faster they get overthrown.

Okay.

Tree wrote:

I wonder if it being a dictatorship has anything to do with that?

The dictatorship is what keeps pro-Sharia/caliphate forces like the Muslim Brotherhood from taking over.

What can I say, it's a mess.

You just said that Syria still mentions Sharia.

Tree wrote:

Yes. I have seen several countries meddling in the Middle East by outside powers. Not sure why appeasement has factored in.

Because due to misinformation on Islam being a "religion of peace", Bush falsely determined that democracy could just flourish over night if you removed Saddam.

If his advisors had told him the truth, maybe he would have made different decisions, or at least NOT overthrown Saddam without a very good backup plan.

Why did we invade Iraq again? And we are still there!

Tree wrote:

Yeah, I would rather not repeat that, but when did I come out in favor of that?

How do you propose we change course?

Invest in nuclear and renewable energy. Than we can just ignore the Middle East, like we do with most of Africa and South America.

Sparhafoc wrote:Rather, the more balanced estimates based on what the most likely outcomes suggest puts the percentage of Europe's population as Muslim in 2050 at around 10-11%.

Is it not also better to say people of Muslim background? All the Muslims I know are the parents of friends of mine.

Yes, absolutely... although we could wait til 2050 for the penny to drop for Tree. This is spelled out in the Pew Research methodology, but when you just read titles, you overlook such details.

According to the Pew Research's methodology, I'd be considered a Christian - not because I am a Christian, not because I hold it as part of my identity, but because I come from a country which is nominally Christian.

There is, of course, no problem in doing this, particularly when it's stated quite clearly in the research methodology, but numpties are going to nump and pick whichever cherries are within their very short reach.

There are very few times I'm not ashamed to be from Alabama. Usually it revolves around college football. Today while I'm not proud of it I'm at least not mortified by it. One step in the right direction. Miles to go.

"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time." “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire

Collecemall wrote:There are very few times I'm not ashamed to be from Alabama. Usually it revolves around college football. Today while I'm not proud of it I'm at least not mortified by it. One step in the right direction. Miles to go.

There is never a reason to be ashamed of where one comes from, but occasionally reasons to be proud of it!

Still, the margin's were tiny... far too many people would put party above all else.

You realize that you look a tit when you play with a name like a high school bully?

This is just projection on your part. You get the respect you deserve.

Nice mantra, how about garnering a fucking clue?

Firstly, your claim is that Muslims will become the dominant population in a European country in the near future.

So wheres your source for that claim, because that Pew Research doesn't support your contention because, as was pretty fucking clear to anyone, it had 3 different models, and the most extreme version - the one which entails continuing conflicts in the Middle East causing millions of people to flee their homes and go to Europe for succor - arrived at 14% population of Europe being Muslims by the year 2050.

By near future I didn't mean by 2050, so there's no contradiction there. Since humans have been around for very long time relatively speaking, even a few centuries could accurately be described as near future.

No contradiction between:

a. Muslims will be 14-11% in 2050. (Again this is the average, Sweden is projected as 20-30% while others will remain in the low single digits.)b. Muslims will be over 50% in at least some European countries where they were previously a small minority at some point after 2050.

So even the most extreme model, the one least likely to be anything reflective of the actual affairs, still contradicts your asinine assertion.

First, I NEVER said the worst case scenario of 14% will happen, but it's also not something I can just dismiss when the stakes are high. The 11% or slightly over is probably more likely, but that's more than double from what it is now and roughly triple from what it was before 2010.

Not that hard to extrapolate based on this graph that IF there is no paradigm shift, meaning...

- no limiting of immigration- no change to the paradigm of welcoming Islam in Europe, the elites pretending it's peaceful, tolerant and suppressing criticism with accusations of racism or hate speech laws, all the post 9/11 appeasement and pandering we're used to- no increase in the fertility of non-Muslims- no unexpected event like a mass apostasy of Muslims

...the Muslim population will continue to grow and eventually become a majority at some point after 2050 in some countries.

Regardless, even in this wildest possible outcome, we still never arrive at Muslims becoming the dominant population in Europe,

Listen to yourself you... you're talking crap again.

Doesn't happen in 2050 or before = never happens?

not least because it would take half the fucking world's population of Muslims to up home and move to Europe you total fucking numpty.

A population expert who doesn't realize population numbers don't stay constant.

Furthermore, you don't know what you're talking about since I'm talking about some European countries.

For a small country like Sweden with a roughly 9.4 million non-Muslim population it would only take over 9.4 million Muslims.

Go on, talk about how 'they' breed a lot.

They breed a lot.

Happy now?

How far into this not very far future are you talking about?

A couple of centuries probably.

Relatively short amount of time considering we've been around for 200k years.

you're appealing to a hypothetical model based explicitly on a continued crisis occurring for multiple generations. What is the actual likelihood of this?

It probably won't continue at the same rate, but Europe has set the precedent that it will not turn back refugees even if the numbers are high.

This can only encourage future migration, including people who aren't in any real crisis but economic migrants.

Well, not very high at all, not least because the numbers are already dropping. In reality, once crises are over, vast numbers will return home.

You have nothing to back the notion they will return home.

Return to what? Working hard in a broken land when it's easier to just squeeze welfare from gullible Europeans while giving nothing or next to nothing in return?

Wet dreams are being made here today. A coup... in Sweden, you say?

A coup in 1917 Russia you say?

Definitely couldn't happen. Oh wait.

History is full of coups, the risk rises when there is social conflict as well such as Islamic values clashing with European values.

There could also be social conflict determined by an external crisis, an earthquake, a plague, a solar flare powerful enough to fry the grid - and that's going to bring out the worst in people living in that area. Without common values, there's nothing to bind that country together through both good and most importantly BAD times.

Your civilization's paradigm is unsustainable.

Ahh yes, Victorian mode on... it's the calibre of these people that is the real issue here, that brown lot can't get their acts in gear!

But wait, weren't they just poised to overthrow us?

Can't you get your fiction to at least be internally consistent? Are they useless schmucks who couldn't hope to organize a piss up in a brewery, or are they fiendish devils lurking behind smiles and waiting to stab us while we sleep?

I never said they were "useless schmucks" just that their values aren't compatible with a democracy. They don't believe in liberty or government by consent, they believe in Sharia.

Oh here we go. We haven't had any American myths for at least 10 posts, so I suppose we're due some.

Yeah no offense, but the last 200+ years have shown which civilization between America and Europe is more robust, more stable in the long term.

Don't bite the hand that feeds.

They also saw first-hand the consequences of religious discrimination and did their utmost to ensure the USA never emulated the Religious Wars in Europe, but let's ignore context and go for cherries.

Anyone who reads the first amendment will notice that it protects the "FREE" exercise of religion. NOT "ALL" exercise of religion. So you're actually incorrect on that.

The government can interfere when people abuse their religious liberties to harm other people's rights. Just as they can interfere when people abuse their gun rights, their parental rights and whatever else. Freedom comes with being responsible for the consquences of your choices.

The Supreme Court for example even explicitly singled out human sacrifice as a type of religious practice that wouldn't be tolerable.

As a matter of mere belief, yes, you can restrict yourself to merely believing that human sacrifice is good, the government can't prosecute you for that, they can only go after you if you attempt or succeed to carry out a human sacrifice, but there are other consequences besides mere criminal penalties: You can become a social pariah for one, nobody is obligated morally or legally to be around degenerates who think it's cool to sacrifice people to gods. Furthermore, the Constitution of the US doesn't apply to foreigners outside of US soil which means they can be denied entrance into the US for pretty much any reason merely because the immigration officer handling their visa approval thinks their presence would be detrimental to national interest. That would include support for human sacrifice. The President also has the power to exclude anyone he wants on those grounds.

Wonderful. Sadly, when it comes to population biology you do need to be an expert to have your proclamations taken seriously. This folksy foray into ship metaphors notwithstanding.

In truth, this is complete bullshit. First, because a claim stands on its merits. This almost borders on the level of stupid of saying you can't date women successfully unless an "expert" teaches you how to...

Second, because there's no way you can possibly have enough expertise on this issue in the first place given how many fields interact here. Your implication that this is entirely population biology is wrong. You're not dealing with something akin to migratory bird patterns here, buddy. You're dealing with people, they are far more complex, these are very large groups of people organized into societies and how they interact (basically what sociology is defined as which is nowhere near as rigorous as the natural or hard sciences, particularly when it tends to have a leftist bias). You're also dealing with politics, you're dealing with ideologies, you're dealing with theology, you're dealing with social movements and a host of other not so easily predictable factors.

Given the amount of bias in these areas, plus the unknown factors, "expert" opinion is far less reliable, particularly when the experts can't even agree with one another, for example you can have political science graduates and professors with completely opposite views. So which political positions are the "correct" ones? What is the "correct" tax rate or the "correct" number of immigrants? Can you answer that in the same way you could make a physics calculation or a computer software solution and everyone would agree with? No. Can you answer that in the same way you could map out the insides of a rabbit and everyone would agree with? No.

I'm not saying it's subjective, I'm saying you have to do your own homework, draw your own conclusions and then vote accordingly, don't rely on "experts" and so-called "experts" alone. If you can't do it, nobody is going to do it for you. The idea that the future of our civilizations should rest exclusively in the hands of a bunch of so-called "experts" sitting in their ivory towers is laughable. Like we're too stupid or something to know what's best for us.

You haven't actually proven yourself to be an expert either, you merely asserted it, so by your own admission, I should ignore anything else you have to say on the issue until you prove yourself. Not only is it important to know what you studied but what you actually specialized in and also what kind of work you do in your daily life. For example, you could be a computer science graduate and working as a programmer using Java in some small tech company. You think that makes you an authority on everything IT related? Can you handle C++? Can you handle hardware as good as software? Can you handle other programming languages? How about something more specific, do you understand how the cryptocurrency algorithms work, shit like Bitcoins, have you done any research into it? Could you create a cryptocurrency given the resources? Do you understand what an ERP is and could you implement it for a company? The list goes on.

So what experience do you actually have working with Muslim demographic predictions and what do you predict will happen AFTER 2050 going forward for a few centuries? If you don't have an answer, you're no better than us non-expert peasants. Get off your high horse and get back in line. Make a proper case, don't just flaunt your degree.

Ahh we're back to ship scenarios again! Lucky us

Explain why it's not a good analogy.

Because your claim is nonsensical and you can't support it.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't automatically mean it's nonsensical.

Even if you take your naive method of appraising the data, how long would it take for your fantasy to come true? Have you calculated? Please show your working for the lulz!

Your ship's hull is filling with water.

No need to calculate the exact hour it will sink to reach the conclusion that it will sink.

Technically you could stop it, but that requires action on your part, either plugging the hole or hypothetically getting your crew to get buckets and throw out the water faster than it gets in. Doing nothing = you sink.

The Creationist Argument repeated for the 7th or 8th time.

Yes, I get it, everything you hate is a "creationist". It's getting old. Don't care.

Incidentally, I'm in the biological sciences, just so you don't trot off into another wild fantasy scenario you contrive ad hoc to sling poo.

And that gives you any expert-level insight into social trends, politics or theology how exactly?

Never mind how ridiculous that is.

Now, I've interacted with economists (finance experts, brokers), they occasionally mail me advice on stock market investments. Not one of them has enough information to guarantee that any of my investments will pay off, in fact all the reports they keep mailing me come with a disclaimer along the lines of this is just our opinion, we're not liable for your loss, do your own homework when you invest in a company or a bond, take your own risks blah blah blah. Every single broker does this.

So if finance experts can't even fully predict how the market will go, what makes you (and you're WAY out of your league here, this actually has VERY little to do with biology) so certain there's no possible way Muslims can become a majority anywhere in Europe?

You're treating a complex social and political issue like it's just a physics calculation where you can settle the answer in 2 minutes and doing appeal to authority because you don't have a good argument. Nobody but your friends and echo chamber will be convinced.

Hi everyone, first of all i want to clarify i'm new to this forum, actually to be more precisely, i'm new to posting on this forum but i've been following this discussion and pretty much all the discussions on this forum under the topics of Religion & Irreligion and also on Science & Mathematics since mid March 2017 which was when i first found this forum through MarsCydonia (so thank you). Personally i highly doubt he remember me but we were discussing with a christian apologist on youtube 2 years ago or so who was trying to prove the existence of god using the Kalam and he had the bad habit of making the rule of "all comments which contains irrelevant arguments will be deleted" so he kept deleting both my comments and Mars's and we both had to keep copy+pasting our full comments and posting the comment again and again since he kept deleting until we started posting outside his OP comment so he would be unable to control our responses anymore but then the apologist soon stopped responding.If my memory recalls correctly i was using a different name at the time and think it was "Fulano do Espaço" with a picture of a cat in a astronault costume.

But without further ado i do want to jump in this conversation and give my two cents on it:

It seems our good friend Tree here is relying on a vague definition of the word "near future" as he keeps raising the amount of time necessary to qualify as such. I think someone should have asked him what his definition of "near future" was before Sparhafoc pointed out Tree's source contradicted his claim and as such gain the ability to nail Tree's feet on his own definition but without this Tree instead will be able to redefine "near future" as having as much time as he needs.

Sparhafoc could for example cite a source that showed that muslim populations would be below 14% for over 500 hundred years and Tree would still be able to claim that thousands of years would still qualify as "near future" since on geological scales, a thousand years passes just as a blink of a eye.

Also i want to apologize for all the possible gramatical errors, english is not my mother language and i had to learn it on my own and as i keep interacting here more so in the future hopefully i improve my skills.

Collecemall wrote:There are very few times I'm not ashamed to be from Alabama. Usually it revolves around college football. Today while I'm not proud of it I'm at least not mortified by it. One step in the right direction. Miles to go.

There is never a reason to be ashamed of where one comes from, but occasionally reasons to be proud of it!

Still, the margin's were tiny... far too many people would put party above all else.

It is sort of a combo now. The party is religion. The republicans have done a fantastic job making them the same. They for sure do strategy better than the dems. A whole bunch of the issue here is bigotry and hate. With a side dish of "he's a baby killer". You should see the junk mail I got last week.

"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time." “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire

Jason Boreu wrote:Hi everyone, first of all i want to clarify i'm new to this forum, actually to be more precisely, i'm new to posting on this forum but i've been following this discussion and pretty much all the discussions on this forum under the topics of Religion & Irreligion and also on Science & Mathematics since mid March 2017 which was when i first found this forum through MarsCydonia (so thank you). [...]

Jason Boreu wrote:Hi everyone, first of all i want to clarify i'm new to this forum, actually to be more precisely, i'm new to posting on this forum but i've been following this discussion and pretty much all the discussions on this forum under the topics of Religion & Irreligion and also on Science & Mathematics since mid March 2017 which was when i first found this forum through MarsCydonia (so thank you). [...]

Jason Boreu wrote:It seems our good friend Tree here is relying on a vague definition of the word "near future" as he keeps raising the amount of time necessary to qualify as such. I think someone should have asked him what his definition of "near future" was before Sparhafoc pointed out Tree's source contradicted his claim and as such gain the ability to nail Tree's feet on his own definition but without this Tree instead will be able to redefine "near future" as having as much time as he needs.

Sparhafoc could for example cite a source that showed that muslim populations would be below 14% for over 500 hundred years and Tree would still be able to claim that thousands of years would still qualify as "near future" since on geological scales, a thousand years passes just as a blink of a eye.

Good luck finding that source.

You did raise an important point. How long are you willing to defend your civilization or civilizations you consider allies?

My life may end in 40 years to so, my concerns however don't have a time limit. I want Europe to still be Europe - or better - indefinitely and Islam is a retrograde ideology that drags every society down. For the same reason you probably don't want fascism to ever be mainstream, I don't want Islam to ever be mainstream. For that matter, I don't want communism or feudalism to ever be mainstream. I'm not sure if you'd say the same but all the ideologies mentioned here have two things in common: anti-liberty and anti-human flourishing. So the idea that it is somehow "bigoted" to oppose them is nonsense.

Tree wrote:First, I NEVER said the worst case scenario of 14% will happen, but it's also not something I can just dismiss when the stakes are high. The 11% or slightly over is probably more likely, but that's more than double from what it is now and roughly triple from what it was before 2010.

Not that hard to extrapolate based on this graph that IF there is no paradigm shift, meaning...

- no limiting of immigration- no change to the paradigm of welcoming Islam in Europe, the elites pretending it's peaceful, tolerant and suppressing criticism with accusations of racism or hate speech laws, all the post 9/11 appeasement and pandering we're used to- no increase in the fertility of non-Muslims- no unexpected event like a mass apostasy of Muslims

...the Muslim population will continue to grow and eventually become a majority at some point after 2050 in some countries.

But many of these things ARE already happening.

- Immigration is being limited heavily already in many countries.- I'm not really seeing this "elites pretending it's peaceful [...]" stuff. What I AM seeing is muslims being defended from the worst generalizations, coming from various places.- I've only ever heard that the next generation of muslims drops quickly, as fertility rates tend to do whenever quality of life increases. So it seems reasonable to assume that the rates will even out eventually. - I think we're already seeing a slow "modernization" of many Muslims (not all - some tend to harden in their faith, which is a problem), which is the same process that has happened to a majority of Christians in the modern world - probably an effect of more education, increase in quality of life, living in a technological and affluent society.

So yeah, I'm not really a fan of super-religious people pouring into the West, nor any other place, tbh, since I'm not really a fan of religious people, period. That mostly applies to religious (or ideologicallu oriented) people in general, since people in large groups tend to be... not good.But what I think you are espousing is exaggerated, basically fear-mongering (and you are by far not the worst at this, as I'm sure you know).

And you know, we've seen this kind of fear-mongering before. It usually never turns out well if allowed to run its course, so this is probably why you're seeing many people push back. The US has seen many waves of immigration with a subsequent backlash against the immigrating group. It was never pretty, and never seemed to do any good.

I don't think we should just let immigrants (of any kind) pour into a country en masse. Not because it's "amoral", "unpatriotic" or whatever, but because it's economically, politically and practically unfeasible. So it's those kinds of arguments I want to hear about. Not the "they're rats and they'll outbreed us!" crap we keep hearing from the (mostly) the Right.

It was just an example from a hypothetical, i'm sure it won't be needed to explain to you the meaning does it?

Tree wrote:You did raise an important point. How long are you willing to defend your civilization or civilizations you consider allies?

As long as it is humanly possible.

Tree wrote:My life may end in 40 years to so, my concerns however don't have a time limit. I want Europe to still be Europe - or better - indefinitely and Islam is a retrograde ideology that drags every society down. For the same reason you probably don't want fascism to ever be mainstream, I don't want Islam to ever be mainstream. For that matter, I don't want communism or feudalism to ever be mainstream. I'm not sure if you'd say the same but all the ideologies mentioned here have two things in common: anti-liberty and anti-human flourishing. So the idea that it is somehow "bigoted" to oppose them is nonsense.

Yes i also want Europe to still be Europe, i also don't want facism or islam or communism or feudalism to be mainstream however that doesn't mean that i have to swallow your fear mongering.

The problem with you seems to be that you assume that either one has to believe in your right wing propaganda or one doesn't care about Europe or liberty or human flourishing or any other threat you can use to scare people with.

So unless you have solid evidence that "the muslim apocalipse" is gonna take over Europe, the rational people will just ignore your fear mongering and move on about their lifes, while you are at that, why don't you start by citing some sources that shows that after 2050 the muslims are gonna take over Europe?

So unless you have solid evidence that "the muslim apocalipse" is gonna take over Europe

I can't offer you certainty if that's what you want, nor is certainty required to make rational decisions.

I don't know for certain whether or not having unprotected anal sex with 100 random hookers will get you infected with HIV or not, but it's irrational to do so if health concerns you at all.

If that is not what you mean, then you'll have to explain what qualifies as solid evidence to you. What more do you want? We have a demographic projection going all the way up to 2050. We also have a history to look to which has been a solid upward trend every single year. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate based on that chart what the numbers might look like going forward. If nothing changes, and I have no reason to believe any of it will change, they can only go up.

Would you like to explain why you believe the trend might change or why we shouldn't do anything about it? Even if none of what I say happens, did you account for the risk of it happening and the consequences that come with that?

Less emotion and fear mongering and more rationality please.

Let's be clear, it would be rational to oppose policies that lead to even a 10% Muslim population being a thing.

The cons far outweigh the pros.

Please explain to me, "rationally", what is the benefit of having millions of Muslim migrants? What could they possibly contribute with that no other migrants or the natives can?